Summary

In May 2017, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), Az. XI ZR 571/15, has given its views for the first time on bridging loans (Überbrückungskredite) and their validity in a restructuring scenario.

Late last month, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in PEM Entities LLC v. Eric M. Levin & Howard Shareff. At issue in PEM Entities is whether a debt claim held by existing equity investors should be recharacterized as equity. The Supreme Court is now poised to resolve a split among the federal circuits concerning whether federal or state law should govern debt recharacterization claims.

Summary

The German Federal Court of Finance (BFH) has recently decided on the tax treatment of profits resulting from debt waived in the course of a company´s restructuring (case file no. GrS 1/15, 28 November 2016).

The BFH:

We have written in the past about the doctrine of equitable mootness. A March 30, 2017 per curiam affirmance by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson) explores the concept and limitations of equitable mootness and distinguishes it from the related doctrine of constitutional mootness.

Summary

The German Federal Court has recently examined the treatment of shareholder loans and how these creditor claims are classified in the event of a company’s insolvency (decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dated 13 October 2016 (file no. IX ZR 184/14)).

Background

What can a lender do about successive bankruptcy filings by a borrower? What can lessors do when their tenants file successive bankruptcy petitions? A recent decision by a bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of New York gives guidance on these questions.

In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

When should debt be recharacterized as equity? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact upon expected recovery in bankruptcy since equity does not begin to get paid until all prior classes of claims are paid in full. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided some guidance on when and in what circumstances recharacterization is appropriate. The Court’s decision also serves as warning to purchasers of debt that they may not be able to hide behind the original debt transaction in a recharacterization fight.

Background

Pursuant to Sec. 15 para. 1 of the German Insolvency Code (lnsolvenzordnung, lnsO) the managing directors of a company may individually file a request to open insolvency proceedings on behalf of the company, even if they only have joint power of representation together with other managing directors. This special right to file the request on behalf of the company prevails over the general or agreed provisions regarding the power of representation of the directors.

The Rules